Coming up . . .

What should communities do to protect children from convicted sex offenders? What strategies work and which ones don't? Sarah Tofte, a researcher with Human Rights Watch and author of 2007 report, "No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the United States," addresses those concerns with the Editorial Board in an Editorial Spotlight at 11 a.m. Tuesday. To watch the LIVE Web cast, go to lohud.com/editorialspotlight. Click on the "Cover It Live'' feature at the right of your screen to submit questions during the session. For more information about Tofte, read her report at http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2007/09/11/no-easy-answers.

More

ADVERTISEMENT

How can communities most effectively - and legally - protect themselves from convicted sex offenders? What kind of restrictions should be placed on the day-to-day lives of those deemed most at risk of re-offending? What role should local governments play in shaping those measures?

A recent state Supreme Court decision asserts that state regulations supercede local measures when it comes to regulating where convicted sex offenders can live. New York state has myriad laws regarding sex offenders, from Meagan's Law, which requires convicted sex offenders to notify law enforcement when they move into a community, to newly enacted guidelines and procedures concerning where the most dangerous sex offenders can live.

The Jan. 23 ruling by state Supreme Court Justice William Kelly invalidated Rockland's Pedophile Free Child Safety Zone Act, enacted in 2007. The local law has been the subject of several legal challenges, as have some of the 80-plus similar laws that have been adopted from Niagara Falls to Long Island. Such sex offender zones usually target those classified as Level 2 and Level 3 offenders. Level 2 designates a moderate risk of re-offending; Level 3 refers to those deemed at high risk of committing another crime.

Kelly's ruling in New City dismissed a probation violation against Yoel Oberlander for moving to a residence within 1,000 feet of a "Rockland County pedophile-free child safety zone," which included schools, child-care facilities, park playgrounds, youth centers and public swimming pools. Because the judge has ruled that the local law is pre-empted by state law, the county attorney has said that an appeal is unlikely, according to a county spokeswoman.

The court decision has implications beyond Oberlander's probation or even Rockland's safety zone law. Similar laws, including one in Putnam County, which recently updated its child zone law, ostensibly to avoid legal challenges, could also be in jeopardy. Westchester also has been considering child safety zone legislation. A New Jersey court last year struck down local safety zones, citing their interference with parole and probation officers' efforts to find suitable housing for offenders.

'Not in my backyard'

Judge Kelly expressed concern about "not in my backyard" residency requirements creating a hodge-podge of restrictions throughout New York. "Sex offender residency restrictions are multiplying throughout New York State, as local legislatures scramble to outmaneuver each other with highly restrictive ordinances designed to banish registered offenders from their community," Kelly wrote.

Indeed, that's what happened after the Rockland County Department of Social Services arranged for another Level 3 sex offender, Christopher Palma, to be housed in Ulster County. Palma had been admitted to the county's Summit Park hospital for two weeks, but when it was time for him to be discharged, Palma said he couldn't find housing that complied with the county's child zone law. He ended up staying at the county-owned facility for 19 months; under state law, he couldn't be discharged without a place to go. After Palma's relocation to Ulster was revealed in the local media, Ulster officials protested, and now that county is considering similar residency regulations for sex offenders.

When Rockland's child safety zone law was passed by the county Legislature and signed by County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef, its limitations were duly noted. Some said it offered a false sense of security. The prime sponsor, Legislator Ed Day, R-New City, said it should not be seen as a total security blanket for children; it's just another tool for law enforcement. Vanderhoef has repeatedly said that the state must establish standards for housing sex offenders. Gov. David Paterson, when signing the recent updates to state law, directed state social service, parole and probation officials to address "a coordinated and comprehensive statewide policy that will both protect the public and ensure that there is suitable and appropriate housing available for sex offenders in every community in the State."

Rockland probation officers have complained that the child zone law has left few places in Rockland for sex offenders to reside, making it more difficult to monitor dangerous people. Day, a retired high-ranking NYPD officer, dismisses those complaints; he notes that other sex offenders have found places to live in Rockland, notwithstanding the restrictions.

Another take on offenders

Human Rights Watch U.S. researcher Sarah Tofte, based in Manhattan, examined residency restrictions in a 2007 report, "No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the U.S." No evidence could be found to show child safety laws diminished crimes against children, her research found. The organization monitors and defends human right issues around the world.

"For registered offenders, the main impact of the laws may be simply to drive them underground or to uproot them from their families and communities," the report states. Family support, counseling and employment are seen by many in the criminal justice community as strong motivators against recidivism. Her report concluded that, "Residency restrictions for convicted sex offenders should be determined on a case-by-case basis, for example by courts or probation and parole officers, and be subject to periodic review."

Paterson, in a memorandum on the state law last year, underscored the challenge of finding appropriate housing for offenders, a burden that falls on local probation and social services officials. Some probation and social service officials have said that by making it so difficult for them to find housing, sex offenders can slip into homelessness, which creates barriers to tracking their comings and goings - a dangerous proposition.

New York has tough laws

Kelly noted in his ruling that a 2005 state law barred sex offenders whose victims were minors and who were under parole and probation supervision from residing within 1,000 feet of schools. "In fact, New York has one of the strictest sex offender residency law(s) in the nation," Kelly wrote. As well, New York's Megan's Law shows the state's intention to manage the sex offender issues, according to Kelly's ruling. The state's newest sex offender regulations, which went into effect this month, mandate that local probation departments take responsibility for approving housing for sex offenders, Kelly notes. As Paterson wrote in his signing memorandum: "This bill recognizes that the placement of these offenders in the community has been and will continue to be a matter that is properly addressed by the State."

State regulations acknowledge a need for buffer zones, but demonstrate a long-term goal of reintegrating offenders into the community, Kelly stated. "Local residency laws don't," he said. "They permanently exclude offenders from communities, setting off a chain-reaction of fear-driven and increasingly restrictive laws."

Where does all this leave safety-conscious local communities? Still searching for answers as to how they can keep children safe - within the boundaries of the law.